• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Film Review - The Mummy (2017)

Jessica Noir

Well-known Member
Great review as always @Sharuna Warner. You can't help but feel sorry for universal for screwing over the Universal Monsters royally with the Dark Universe.

I read somewhere that for the Dark Universe (I feel stupid just typing that) to work The Mummy will need to reach a worldwide box office of $800 million which seems impossible for such a poorly reviewed film in a crowded market place.

It would have been awesome if Universal was a wee bit braver and gave lower budgets ($10-15 million) to some exciting genre directors. Imagine the likes of Adam Wingard, Nacho Vigalondo, Joel Edgerton, Robert Eggers or Anna Biller coming to this material with distinctive takes on the classic Monsters, delivering the scares and producing something distinctive and memorable. Sure it might cost its budget to market and reach a smaller audience, but you won't be pissing money away like they have done here.
 

LicensedTaximan

Well-known Member
Given that the previous Mummy films, with Brendan Fraser et all, are fairly recent and also "The Wolfman" released in 2010 couldn't they have done something a little different.
How about "The Daddy". :rolleyes:


[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolfmandeltoro.jpg']

Rick Baker chose to keep his version as close and faithful to the original Jack Pierce design as much as possible.
[/URL]
 

1080 jawbreaker

Well-known Member
is the film worse than the trailer as that was dire?
 

barnaby jones

Distinguished Member
This was good, silly fun. Cruise gives the film far more commitment than it probably warrants but in turn it raises proceedings no end.
 

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
It would have been awesome if Universal was a wee bit braver and gave lower budgets ($10-15 million) to some exciting genre directors. Imagine the likes of Adam Wingard, Nacho Vigalondo, Joel Edgerton, Robert Eggers or Anna Biller coming to this material with distinctive takes on the classic Monsters, delivering the scares and producing something distinctive and memorable. Sure it might cost its budget to market and reach a smaller audience, but you won't be pissing money away like they have done here.

they're a step ahead of you regarding budgets

The Bride of Frankenstein (14 February 2019)
 

SteveAWOL

Distinguished Member
Just back from watching The Mummy and thought that the first half was good fun (felt a bit like Three Kings meets Hot Fuzz) but Crowe's mockney accent was almost as dodgy as Beckham's cameo in King Arthur!

An entertaining enough popcorn flick to pass a couple of hours, although no substitute for the much missed Penny Dreadful.

6/10


I caught the 2D version in local Superscreen and was surprised at how grainy the picture looked; I thought it was a stylistic choice but then there were some scenes in the middle which looked crisp before it went beck to looking like it was shot on 16mm o_O

Plus there were a couple of scenes, notably in the pub, where faces were briefly out of focus; not sure if this was a visual cue for something I've overlooked :confused:

The Atmos surround sound was good though!
 

mazon27091

Well-known Member
Nothing special, a by the numbers Tom Cruise action flick. It would have been better as a smaller horror film, there were some good ideas in it, but the larger action elements seemed forced.

5/10
 

Nobbler

Distinguished Member
Love the irony that it's getting a kicking here but this is my PC screen at the minute...
mummy.png
 

Spacecat

Banned
saw the trailer waiting to watch the awful Alien Covenant ....and thought I've seen about all of that movie that I want to
 
Last edited:

Bacus

Distinguished Member
I'm currently on holiday in Florida and went and watched this with my son.
We both found it a great easy to watch film, nothing special but very entertaining and well worth watching.
Can't wait for a 4K disc to be released.
 

ODB_69

Distinguished Member
Is it fair to call it's reboot? I mean a vampire film isn't necessarily a reboot of Dracula
 

WarHog

Well-known Member
Saw this at the cinema yesterday and thought it was utter utter garbage. Perhaps Cruise's worst film.

Hardly a remake either, appeared to be a completely different film to the original.
 

DarkEntity

Well-known Member
Its terrible, without a doubt Cruise's worst film. It doesn't seem to know what its trying to be, at points it's action, then tries to be scary, then Indiana Jones, then something else, ugh...its just horrible.

I had high hopes for some sort of good old monster movie, alas was not to be, if the rest are going to be like this then Ill give them all a miss.

At least Rock of Ages was supposed to be tongue in cheek fun, this is just plain bad!
 

Roohster

Distinguished Member
I didn't think it was dreadful, but it could have been a lot better.

WAY too much Cruise on screen compared to Boutella (The Mummy).
And what the hell...
...was the completely unnecessary Dr. Jeckyll doing in there?
 

Joe Pineapples

Distinguished Member
Watched this tonight as far as the washroom scene with Cruise and his buddy. I remembered how this film should be classed as throwaway entertainment so did just that. Rubbish (even by that label's standard).
 

Garrett

Moderator
I watched this the other night and did not think it was bad, mind you I did not think it was that good either. All the elements were there to make an exciting film and yet it wasn't.
I really did not feel any dread for any of the characters. I thought Crowe character was terrible, and don't know what the bit was about with the gloved hand, not unless it was supposed to be a nod at Dr Strangelove.
There was on scene I did laugh out loud at but I don't know if it was meant to be
the bit where Tom looks found in the tunnel and see a horde of undead behind him.
I would have liked to see where they took the series and seen if they improved on the mistakes of the first.
As for the 3D there really was not out of the screen shots and there were times I could have been watching 2D. The best was at the start of the film but a lot of the scenes where in the dark nothing seemed to pop.
I don't think it as bad as a 5 as I was entertained but not even good enough to want to watch again any time soon, for a 6 or above so Ill score it 5.5/10

BTW 6 writers, only goes to prove the old adage too many cooks spoil the broth.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Hisense U7H TV and T+A Solitaire T headphone reviews, AV/HiFi news plus, what is screen uniformity?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom